Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bilke, 781 P.2d 28.

81 citing documents.

State v. McElveen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amaral Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amaral Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
One of the requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence is that “the evidence must appear on its face to have existed at the time of trial but be discovered after trial.”
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999) (failure to disclose exculpatory evidence); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-92 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269-71 (1959) (false testimony); -53, -30 (1989) (newly discovered evidence); (prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Walton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Walton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Frausto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Frausto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. James Lee Hess 290 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Lee Hess 290 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-53, -30 (1989) (defendant must show evidence existed at time of trial, defendant exercised diligence in presenting claim, and evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, but relevant and, if known, would have changed outcome of trial)
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
(finding evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder constituted newly discovered evidence that may have affected sentencing).
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
-53 , -30 (1989), we discussed the showing that must be made in order to obtain an evidentiary hearing on a claim of newly discovered evidence: A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegation of newly-discovered evidence if he presents a “colorable claim.” A colorable claim in a n
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
There are five requirements to establish a colorable claim of fresh evidence, one of which is that “the evidence must appear on its face to have existed at the time of trial but be discovered after trial.” -53 , -30 (1989).
State v. Boldrey 861 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Boldrey 861 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Cooper 800 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Cooper 800 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990